alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021035EN.01005001.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/50

---

Order of the General Court of 7 December 2020 — Militos Symvouleftiki v Commission

(Case T-536/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of services in the field of the organisation of communication activities on behalf of the Commission’s Representation in Greece - Annulment of the call for tenders - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 35/65)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Militos Symvouleftiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Farmakidis-Markou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 May 2019 to annul call for tenders PR/2018-16/ATH concerning the provision of services in the field of the organisation of communication activities on behalf of its Representation in Greece.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Militos Symvouleftiki AE shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Militos Symvouleftiki AE shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15417]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-22-2021]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 123--Denver, Colorado, Authorization of 
Production Activity, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Lockheed Martin Space 
(Satellites and Other Spacecraft), Littleton, Colorado

    On March 17, 2021, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Lockheed Martin 
Space submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the 
FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 123G, in Littleton, Colorado.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (86 FR 15642, March 24, 2021). On July 
15, 2021, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that 
no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The 
production activity described in the notification was authorized, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including 
Section 400.14.

    Dated: July 15, 2021.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15417 Filed 7-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
# C_2022024EN.01004901.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/49

---

Order of the General Court of 16 November 2021 — Vodafone Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-491/19) (1)

(2022/C 24/64)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Tenth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

---
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF JIM HAGEMANN SNABE, CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SAP AG

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.

SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of SAP AG (the Company) on Form 20-F for the
period ending December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2013 (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                        |  | 
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------- |  | 
|Date March 21, 2013 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Jim Hagemann Snabe |  | 

| |  |  |  |        |  |                            |  | 
| |  |  |  | ------ |  | -------------------------- |  | 
| |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Jim Hagemann Snabe         |  | 
| |  |  |  | Title: |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer |  | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
# C_2020209EN.01000301.xml

| 22.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2019 — Flightright GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-939/19)

(2020/C 209/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Flightright GmbH

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

The case was decided by order of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2020.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Ralph Giordanella and Charles Cuneo, Respondents.

—Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Brennan, J.), dated July 13, 1984, as granted those branches of defendants’ motion which sought to dismiss (1) indictment No. 79/84, charging defendants Cuneo and Giordanella with attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree and falsifying business records in the first and second degrees, (2) indictment No. 80/84 charging defendant Cuneo with attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the second *618degree (four counts), attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree (three counts), falsifying business records in the second degree (three counts), and (3) indictment No. 81/84, charging defendant Giordanella with criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (four counts), falsifying business records in the first and second degrees, and attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from on the law, those branches of the motion denied, and indictments reinstated as against defendants Cuneo and Giordanella. The matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for determination of the remaining branches of their omnibus motion.

This case is before us on appeal from an order of Criminal Term which granted those branches of defendants’ omnibus motion which sought to dismiss the indictments on the ground that the evidence before the Grand Jury was not legally sufficient to establish the offenses charged or any lesser included offenses (CPL 210.20 [1] [b]). On such a motion, the standard of judicial scrutiny is whether there is "competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant’s commission thereof’ (CPL 70.10 [1]; *see, People v Schwartz,*90 AD2d 800). Viewed in a light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Warner-Lambert Co.,*51 NY2d 295, 299, *cert denied*450 US 1031), the evidence was sufficient to sustain the charges against defendants Cuneo and Giordanella. The indictments were therefore improperly dismissed. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of Traffix, Inc.

Subsidiary

State of Incorporation
or Organization1.

GroupLotto, Inc.

Delaware2.

MultiBuyer, Inc.

Delaware3.

Traffix Wireless, Inc.

Delaware4.

Quintel E-Mail, Inc.

Delaware5.

Quintelcomm, Inc.

Delaware6.

Quintel Financial Information Services, Inc.

Delaware7.

Calling Card Company, Inc.

New York8.

New Lauderdale L.C.

Florida9.

N.L. Corp.

Delaware10.

Creative Direct Marketing, Inc.

Delaware11.

Quintel Hair Products, Inc.

Delaware12.

Quintel Products, Inc.

Delaware13.

Quintelco., Inc.

Delaware14.

Quintel Psychic Zone, Inc.

Delaware15.

Quintel LaBuick Products, LLC

Delaware16.

ThanksMuch, Inc.

Delaware17.

InfiKnowledge, ULC

Nova Scotia, CA18.

Montvale Management, LLC

New Jersey19.

Traffix Canada, Inc.

Delaware20.

TXNET, Inc.

Delaware21.

Atlas Sites, Inc.

Delaware22.

iMatchup.com, Inc.

Delaware23.

Direct Deposit Promotions, Inc.

Delaware24.

HMV Services, Inc.

Delaware25.

SendTraffic.com, Inc.

Delaware


---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 1.10 CERTIFICATE OF NAME CHANGE FROM FIRST EMPIRE CORPORATION INC. TO NOBLE HOUSE ENTERTAINMENT INC. DATED NOVEMBER 4, 2004



For Ministry Use Only

Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Business Services

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that these articles are effective on

NOVEMBER 04 NOVEMBRE, 2004

/s/Beverly Hawton

Beverly Hawton

Director, Business Corporations Act



Ontario Corporation Number

1228120



Form 3 Business Corporations Act



ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT



1.  The name of the corporation is:  (Set out in BLOCK CAPITAL LETTERS)



FIRST EMPIRE CORPORATION INC.



2.  The name of the corporation is changed to (if applicable):  (Set out in BLOCK CAPITAL LETTERS)



NOBLE HOUSE ENTERTAINMENT INC.



3.  Date of incorporation/amalgamation:



1997-03-18

(Year, Month, Day)



4.  Complete only if there is a change in the number of directors or the minimum/maximum number of directors.



Number of directors is/are:  or  minimum and maximum number of directors is/are:



Number  or  minimum and maximum



5.  The articles of the corporation are amended as follows:



(A)  IT IS RESOLVED THAT THE NAME OF THE CORPORATION BE CHANGED TO NOBLE HOUSE ENTERTAINMENT INC.



6.  The amendment has been duly authorized as required by sections 168 and 170 (as applicable) of the Business Corporations Act.



7.  The resolution authorizing the amendment was approved by the shareholders/directors (as applicable) of the corporation on



2004-NOV-01

(Year, Month, Day)



These articles are signed in duplicate.



FIRST EMPIRE CORPORATION INC.

(Name of Corporation)(If the name is to be changed by these articles set our current name)



By:  /s/Kam Shah

Kam Shah

CEO and CFO
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





Written
      Statement of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Traffix, Inc.
      ("Registrant"), hereby certifies that the Registrant’s annual Report on Form
      10-K for the year ended November 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with
      the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Registrant.








/s/
      DANIEL HARVEY





DANIEL
      HARVEY


Chief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, H. Robert
Newman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 29, 2007
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of NeoMagic Corporation.

Date: June 13, 2007



By:

/s/ H. Robert NewmanName:

H. Robert NewmanTitle:

Acting Chief Financial Officer
#### Payne *vs.*Payne.

July 1, 1891.

Divorce — Impotency.—The term “impotency” defined.

.Same — Sufficiency of Finding. — A finding that the defendant is impotent implies and includes every essential element constituting impotency, within the meaning of the law of divorce.

Action brought in the district court for Hennepin county, by husband against wife, for an absolute divorce on the ground of defendant’s impotency. Appeal by defendant from an order refusing a new trial after a trial before *Hooker,*J., and judgment ordered for plaintiff.

*Ferguson é Kneeland*and *Edward G. Gale,*for appellant.

*E. A. Sumner,*for respondent.

Mitchell, J.

The statute does not define the term “impotency,” but in the law of divorce it means want of *potentia copulandi,*and not merely incapacity for procreation. It is an incapacity that admits neither copulation nor procreation. And what the law refers to is capacity for *copula vera,*and not partial and imperfect or unnatural copulation. The incapacity must also be incurable. 1 Bish. Mar. & Div. § 765 *et seq.; D*— e v. *A*— g, 1 Rob. Ecc. 279. The nature of the case forbids a discussion of the evidence, but in our opinion it fully justified a finding that the defendant was “impotent” in the legal sente of the term. The court finds that she “was at the time of her marriage, and ever since has been, and is still, impotent.” This is a complete and sufficient finding upon the only issue in the case; for the word “impotent” implies and includes every element essential as a ground of divorce. The learned judge, however, instead of limiting his findings to this one ultimate issuable fact, has, in accordance with an unfortunately common practice, incorporated into them a statement of the evidence and his conclusions on numerous mere evidentiary facts, in which, after describing defendant’s natural defects, the efforts by surgical operations to remedy these defects, and the failure of such efforts, he adds: “We are unable to find *468that the defendant’s condition could be materially bettered by further surgical operations. She appears to have consulted noted surgeons, and was for a long time treated by Dr. Phillips, and after continued operations we find her in the condition above stated at the time of her marriage.” It is contended that this amounts to an express special finding that he was unable to decide whether defendant’s impotency was curable or not. We do not think that it fairly admits of this construction. What we think the judge meant was that, in view of the serious character of defendant’s natural deformity, and the failure of previous skilled operations to remedy it, he was of opinion that any future operations would be equally unsuccessful; which was but a mild way of saying that the defect was incurable.

Order affirmed.
exv10w72









EXHIBIT 10.72




Description of Waiver of Benefits



On September 25, 2009, John C. Carson and John J. Stuart, Jr. agreed to waive their deferred income
entitlements under the Executive Salary Continuation Plan effective September 25, 2009.
#### Mary Conte, Respondent, v Bernard Brill et al., Appellants.

In a medical malpractice action, defendants appeal, as *211limited by their briefs, (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Composto, J.), dated November 30, 1983, as granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to allege a cause of action for wrongful death; and (2) from so much of an order of the same court, dated December 22,1983, as denied defendant Di Gangi’s motion and that branch of defendant Brill’s cross motion which sought reargument.

Appeal from the order dated December 22,1983 dismissed. No appeal lies from so much of an order as denies reargument.

Order dated November 30, 1983 affirmed, insofar as appealed from.

Plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

The physician’s affirmations submitted in support of the application for leave to amend the complaint were sufficient to establish a causal connection between the alleged acts of malpractice and the decedent’s death *(cf. Fiorentino v Cobble Hill Nursing Home,*101 AD2d 825). O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
# C_2019103EN.01005501.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/55

---

Action brought on 28 January 2019 — View v EUIPO (CREATE DELIGHTFUL HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS)

(Case T-49/19)

(2019/C 103/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: View, Inc. (Milpitas, Delaware, United States) (represented by: G. Tritton, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark CREATE DELIGHTFUL HUMAN ENVIRONMENTS — International registration designating the European Union No 1 381 213

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 in Case R 1625/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2021349EN.01003102.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Benavides Torres v Council

(Case T-35/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Error of assessment)

(2021/C 349/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Antonio José Benavides Torres (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou, V. Piessevaux, P. Mahnič and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Antonio José Benavides Torres to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Antonio José Benavides Torres to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---
Exhibit 10.2



Confidential



LOGO



Interoffice Memorandum



|      |  |                                                                                
|----- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|To:   |  | Personnel File                                                                 
|      | 
|From: |  | Christopher K. McLeod, Interim CEO & President of 454 Life Sciences Corporation
|      | 
|Date: |  | February 1, 2005                                                               
|      | 
|Re:   |  | Amendment to Employment Agreement dated April 1, 2002                          



I, Christopher K. McLeod, (the
Executive) signed an Employment Agreement (the Agreement) with my employer, CuraGen Corporation (the Company), on or about April 1, 2002, and subsequently signed an Addendum to the Agreement on October 31, 2003. Exhibit
A, Item 1) of the original Agreement provides that the Executives initial base salary shall be subject to increases by the Board of Directors, which shall review the salary periodically. Therefore, pursuant to the minutes of the January 25,
2005, Meeting of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, the Executives 2005 base salary was adjusted to $286,000 per year, payable in bi-weekly installments. However, effective January 31, 2005, as a result of being named
Interim CEO & President of 454 Life Sciences Corporation the Executives base salary was increased to $322,000, which is payable in bi-weekly installments.



Unless explicitly changed in the Addendum dated October 31, 2003, all other terms of the original Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ Christopher K. McLeod
|Christopher K. McLeod    
|                         
|/s/ Jonathan M. Rothberg 
|Jonathan M. Rothberg
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0074

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

BRICE WILLIAM WILKE,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with Rules 11 and 12 of the 

Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellant’s opening brief 

filed electronically on June 8, 2021, this Court has determined that the brief does not 

comply with Rule 12 and must be supplemented as provided below. 

Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 12(1)(i), appellants must attach an “appendix that

includes the relevant judgment, order(s), findings of fact, conclusions of law, jury

instruction(s), ruling(s), or decision(s) from which the appeal is taken together with any

written memorandum or rationale of the court, and those pages of the transcript 

containing any oral ruling in support” to an opening brief. The appendix to the 

Appellant’s opening brief did not contain the relevant documents. Accordingly, while the 

Court accepts filing of the opening brief, the Appellant shall file ten copies of an 

appendix including the relevant document(s) from which he appeals.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Appellant file ten copies of an appendix including the 

relevant documents from which his appeal is taken within ten (10) days of the date of this 

Order with the Clerk of this Court and that the Appellant serve copies of this appendix on 

all parties of record.

The Clerk is directed to provide a true copy of this Order to the Appellant and to 

all parties of record. 

Electronically signed by:

Ingrid Gustafson

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 8 2021

06/08/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0074